Harry Potter Canon: An Analysis
by Beletrium
Summary: This fic is going to show my thoughts on the Harry Potter canon series. I will be 'analysing' characters, relationships, books, movies, places and specific events from canon. It is going to be mostly my opinions, but people should review with theirs.
1. Dumbledore's Decisions: Harry

**_Disclaimer: This fic is an analysis of the canon Harry Potter series. I own nothing that is mentioned here except my own opinions. This fic is not making any money. nor do I want it to._**

* * *

><p><strong><em>Author's Note<em>**

**I recently wrote what is in this first chapter on my Bio because I felt like it. I found that I quite enjoyed doing so, so I decided to create this fic to address the canon series from my perspective. As such, everything contained in this fic is going to be my opinion. I know that not everyone will agree with my opinion, but I welcome you all to review and tell me your own opinions. I would like to consider this something of an open forum.**

**I will be starting this fic with my analysis of Dumbledore's decisions relating to Harry. Some of you may have read this in my bio, but I have altered some bits slightly. Not all that much has changed really.**

**I have no idea what the next chapter will be on. I will never have a set time in which to put up a new chapter of this fic because I will write when something comes to my mind. I have thought about doing an analysis of either Ron/Hermione, Ginny/Harry, Harry's reactions to Dumbledore's decisions or Petunia Dursley. Let me know what you think and I will choose. I will eventually do all of them though.**

**Since this is not a 'story' as such, my Author's Notes will be at the top of the chapters.**

**As a last note, there will be SPOILERS for all books in this fic. If you don't want to be spoiled, don't read on. You have been warned.  
><strong>

**Thank you for reading.**

**Beletrium**

* * *

><p>I am quite surprised at how many Dumbledore bashing, manipulative Dumbledore and evil Dumbledore fics there are. I do find some of them fun to read (the well written ones at least) but I don't think that they are all entirely warranted. I have decided to do an in-depth analysis of Dumbledore's decisions over the years to show my points. I will basically choose some points that people bring up about Dumbledore being manipulativeevil that are in relation to Harry and I will put what I think on the topic.

**1. Why did Dumbledore testify that Sirius Black was the Potters' Secret Keeper?**  
>Now, this one I can give some leniency. But nowhere in the series did it ever say that Dumbledore cast the Fidelius Charm. It was said in canon, as far as I can remember, that Lily Potter was good at Charms so wouldn't it be logical to say that she would be able to cast a Fidelius Charm herself? So if that is the case, Dumbledore need not have been involved. Also, if Sirius' idea that Pettigrew would be a less obvious choice would work, surely they wouldn't have actually told anyone about the switch. They would have let Dumbledore remain sure that Sirius was the Secret Keeper to maintain Pettigrew's status. Also, Sirius would likely have known if Dumbledore knew about the switch, so why would he trust Dumbledore when he escapes?<p>

**2. Why did Dumbledore leave Harry at the Dursleys'?**  
>I can see why people jump on this one. If the First Book is any indication, Hagrid took Harry away from Sirius on the night of James and Lily's deaths. This means that Sirius had yet to attack Pettigrew. But you also have to remember that Dumbledore thought Sirius had betrayed the Potters so it was really the only choice he could have made at the time to take Harry away from there.<br>Now, to the Dursleys. I see why Dumbledore left him there. The blood wards protected Harry from angry Death Eaters, just look at what they did to Frank and Alice Longbottom. And they weren't even _involved_ in Voldemort's downfall. Imagine what Bellatrix would have done with Harry had she found him.  
>Also, I think it was wise of Dumbledore to keep Harry away from the Ministry. If they had him, he most likely would have ended up in the hands of a family like the Malfoys. That would not have worked out well. I will say that I don't understand why he didn't just take Harry to Hogwarts, being the most protected place around, supposedly. Though, that may have led the Ministry to Hogwarts. It is far easier for Petunia and Vernon to take Harry because they are blood relatives and not involved in the magical world.<br>I understand that some people think that Dumbledore had no legal right over Harry, but that was never conclusively proven. James and Lily's wills were never talked about in canon, that I can remember, so maybe he was next in line after Sirius and, presumably, Pettigrew. Remus couldn't take him as he was a werewolf.

**3. Dumbledore suspected Quirrell was in league with Voldemort. Why didn't he move the Stone or fire Quirrell?**  
>Moving the Stone while keeping Quirrell around was not a good idea. Quirrell would know if the Stone was moved and would likely get violent, possibly killing students. That also moves on to why Dumbledore kept the Stone at Hogwarts and not somewhere else. Yes, I think that it was a bad idea. Why didn't Dumbledore put the Stone somewhere and place a Fidelius over it? That would surely have worked better. But the answer is that Rowling had not thought of the Fidelius at that point. I presume she hadn't at least.<br>Why not fire Quirrell? Ever heard of the phrase "keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?". I think that applies to this particular moment. Dumbledore had assumed that Quirrell was helping Voldemort so why would he let the man go? Dumbledore's suspicions could have helped him prove to the Wizarding World that Voldemort was still around. I do think that it was a coincidence that Dumbledore was away when Quirrell attempted to get the Stone. By that I mean that Dumbledore was not aware he would go for it then. I also believe that Dumbledore would not let his students get in harms way so I don't believe the obstacles were a 'test' or anything like that. To his death, Dumbledore was helping students so why would he deliberately put thim in harms way? Plus, he knew Harry would likely have to defeat Voldemort so why would he risk it in Harry's first year?

**4. Why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry the prophecy after the Quirrell incident?**  
>At this point, Dumbledore still had no conclusive evidence that Voldemort was still around. Yes, he thought he was but that is not good enough. I was talking to my brother on this topic and I described Dumbledore's mindset like this. If you <em>thought <em>that your child _might_ have cancer and you are getting a few tests done, do you tell them they are looking for cancer or do you tell them that they are just running a few tests? I think it would be pretty stupid to tell the child that you _think_ they _might_ have cancer. It would just make the child worried, or worse. Dumbledore's decision to withold the Prophecy was the right one here.

**5. Why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry the Prophecy after Harry's second year?**  
>This one's fairly simple. Here, Dumbledore suspected that Voldemort had at least one Horcrux. When Harry described what happened with the Diary, Dumbledore would have thought that Voldemort could actually be dead. With this assumption, I'm assuming that if Voldemort doesn't have a proper body, destroying all the Horcruxes destroys the spirit as there would be nothing keeping it on Earth. Not much was really discussed on that topic so that is speculation. Not much had really changed about telling Harry the Prophecy from his first year, so I won't repeat myself.<p>

**6. When Harry told Dumbledore the prediction that Trelawney had made in his third year, why did Dumbledore not tell him then?**  
>Again, nothing had really changed except that Dumbledore at least now knew that Voldemort was still around, but not a threat.<p>

**7. Why did Dumbledore keep Harry in the Triwizard Tournament?**  
>I firmly believe that the reason given in canon is the real reason. The Goblet of Fire constitutes a binding magical contract that Harry could not get out of. I have read a fic where Dumbledore declared the Tournament a draw and re-did the drawing out of the Goblet, but Harry's name came out again. I think that this would be a logical chain of events because Crouch was still Moody. So, short of declaring it a tie and not having the Tournament at all, Harry would have to have competed, but even then, Crouch would still have been around.<p>

**8. Why did Dumbledore not tell Harry the Prophecy when Voldemort returned?**  
>This would have been the logical choice for Dumbledore to reveal the Prophecy, but I think his reasoning was fair. He <em>knew<em> that Harry and Voldemort shared a connection, though he didn't know what it was exactly. It would have been disasterous for Voldemort to hear of the Prophecy through Harry's mind. I mean, look at how hard Voldemort tried to get the Prophecy in Harry's fifth year. It made sense for Dumbledore to wait until Harry could protect his thoughts.

**9. Why did Dumbledore not talk to Harry at all in his fifth year?**  
>Despite what I said in the last one, I think this was purely a mistake on Dumbledore's part. Distancing himself from Harry made a little sense, in that Harry would more than likely have asked questions that Dumbledore would not answer for fear of the answers getting to Voldemort. But that did not mean that Dumbledore had to avoid Harry completely. He could have just told Harry outright why he couldn't say anything.<p>

**10. Why Snape as Harry's occlumency teacher?**  
>This was obviously one of the ways in which Dumbledore distanced himself from Harry. It seems that Snape and Dumbledore were the only two Occlumens in the school, though I have to say I would have thought McGonagall would know it. She seems to be a very private person. I do think that this was another mistake by Dumbledore. Harry would likely have had better results with Dumbledore, but he was intent on avoiding Harry where possible. I don't see this as manipulative or evil, just a mistake.<br>One of my loyal readers, _Shinigami_, pointed out to me that Dumbledore could have gotten Kingsley Shacklebolt or Tonks to teach Harry occlumency, as they would likely have known. I would imagine that Dumbledore thought that Harry might be more comfortable with Snape rather then Kingsley or Tonks as Harry had not known them very long. Also, Dumbledore _did_ think that Snape was trustworthy because of Lily so he might have thought Snape would set aside his hatred to help Lily's son. I think, and bear in mind that this is just my opinion, that this was a mistake on Dumbledore's part. Also, Kingsley and Tonks are aurors so they would have been busy, though I would imagine they would find the time if Dumbledore said so.

**11. Dumbledore finally tells Harry the Prophecy. But right after Sirius' death? Really?**  
>Okay, this decision really confused me. Yes, Dumbledore had to tell him. But he could have waited until the next year when Harry had gotten over his godfather's death. Dumbledore had waited five years already, what's another few months? As it was, the revelation would surely have made Harry more depressed about Sirius' death. Once again, I don't see this as manipulative or evil, though I can sort of see where people can take it that way.<p>

Just on a side note, Dumbledore made a lot of mistakes in Harry's fifth year didn't he? I have to attribute that to Voldemort's return.

**12. Why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry how to destroy the Horcruxes?**  
>This one is fairly simple. Harry and Dumbledore had just returned from the cave when Hogwarts was under attack. I would imagine that Dumbledore was going to show Harry how to destroy the Horcruxes when he destroyed the Locket, though it turned out to be a fake. This was more of a timing error then a mistake, I think. I can't imagine that Snape would have known about the attack to warn Dumbledore beforehand. Or if he did, Dumbledore and Harry returned too for Snape to actually tell him.<p>

**13. Why didn't Dumbledore tell Harry that he was a Horcrux?**  
>Again, this one is a simple one. If you tell a person that they <em>have<em> to die, there are a lot of ways that they could theoretically react. One is that they flee. They get as far away as they possibly can. Another is that they go immediately to do what has to be done. Sure, these are the two extremes, but how do you think Harry would have reacted? Personally, I think he would jump at the chance to help stop Voldemort. He would go to Voldemort straight away. But Dumbledore knew that other things had to be done, so he left it to Snape to tell Harry what he had to do when the time was right.  
>I think that this could be the only time Dumbledore is as manipulative as people who write evilmanipulative Dumbledore fics think he is. But despite the manipulation, it had to be done to kill Voldemort. Also, as evidenced by the conversation at 'Kings Cross', Dumbledore believed that Harry would live. Or at least had suspicions. So it was not _all_ bad.

It has come to my attention through a fanfic story entitled '_Return of an Alpha_' by Miz636 that Harry only follows Dumbledore in canon because he's in Gryffindor. I think this has its merits, but I continue to think back to Harry under the Sorting Hat which tried to place him in Slytherin. This means that Harry is at least as much a Slytherin as he is a Gryffindor. But that's just my opinion.

This is all only Dumbledore's decisions that directly involved Harry, so there are a lot of others that I will go through at a later date, i.e. How did Dumbledore not know one of his best friends was a Polyjuiced Death Eater?


	2. Certain Characters Actions in Books 5to7

**_Disclaimer: This fic is an analysis of the canon Harry Potter series. I own nothing that is mentioned here except my own opinions. This fic is not making any money. nor do I want it to._**

* * *

><p><em><strong>Characters Actions in Books 5-7<strong>_

I got a review for my story _Harry Potter and the Unfortunate Son_ from _Shinigami_ where I was asked my thoughts on why some of the characters acted like they did in books 5-7, particularly in relation to Fleur Delacour and Luna Lovegood. This got me thinking so I decided to write my response here. Having just been through that period myself I can tell you from experience why these occurred.

**Hermione Granger**

_Shinigami_ pointed out that Hermione was particularly bad to Luna and Fleur. I'll start with Luna. Hermione is a character who likes, if not lives by, facts. When Hermione sees Luna Lovegood she immediately sees that she does _not_ live by facts, at least not Hermione's. As I said before, I've been through this period just recently so believe me when I say that this is a shockingly common reaction to other people. Rowling actually portrayed this 'relationship' extremely well in my opinion. This is precisely how Hermione should react. The thing is, Rowling didn't expect that anyone would believe Hermione's view of Luna. Just look at how popular Luna is from both the books and films. I think Hermione viewed Luna of a sort of intellectual threat in some ways, even though she thought Luna just made up animals.

Now to Fleur. Let me first point out that Fleur did not make a good first impression in _Goblet of Fire_. First impressions are very important in society despite the fact that they are often wrong. Hermione may have had some memory of Fleur from then. My next point is that Fleur is a Veela and, therefore, has beauty. Hermione is described in the series as 'plain', albeit that was by Rita Skeeter but it still remains true. If you look at what girls are like at those ages, they are extremely self-conscious and can be jealous and bitchy. Despite Hermione's status as a 'bookworm' she would still be subject to this type of thing and I believe this is the root of her problems with Fleur. I've seen this far more than once and I've lost friends to this very problem. Again, Rowling has portrayed this part of adolescence very well.

**Ginny Weasley**

If memory serves me correctly, Ginny was good to Luna in the books, so I'll leave that one. I will talk about Fleur, however. I think that the same thing happened to Ginny as it did to Hermione. She was jealous of Fleur. The difference is that Ginny is portrayed as a good-looking girl while Hermione is 'plain'. In that regard, I believe that Hermione has more right to dislike Fleur for her beauty. I do agree with _Shinigami_'s statement that Ginny should have accepted Fleur and Bill being together and be civil about it, and she eventually did but it took too long. But, again, this is another real world situation. Not every member of someone's family likes their partner. It just happens.

**Ron Weasley**

This wasn't brought up by _Shinigami_ in reference to what I'm talking about, but I do want to bring him up here. Ron was appointed a prefect in _Order of the Phoenix_. So what does he do? Makes Hermione do the majority of the work and steals a Fanged-Frisbee for himself. I mean, come on. He doesn't have to be Percy, but surely he should be better than that.

Now, I don't blame Ron for having a relationship with Lavender Brown in _Half-Blood Prince_. The point I'm going to make is the way he treated Hermione throughout this relationship. Despite the fact that they had been friends since first year, he shunned her when he got a girlfriend. Sure, this isn't exactly new for Ron to do but still. Sadly, this also happens a lot at that time.

**Conclusion**

I guess my response to _Shinigami_ who asked why I thought certain characters acted so badly in the 5-7 books is that they're teenagers. They're hormonal. They're angry. They're jealous. They're judgmental. They're bitchy. They're stupid. And, in all honesty, Rowling wrote it spot on! From Cho's jealousy of Hermione, to Hermione's jealousy of Fleur. I have seen these things happen and turn out far worse.

Also, look at how the adults act. They're not this way, for the most part at least. It's only the teenagers.

Ultimately, the Harry Potter series is about teenagers going through school and fighting a war they shouldn't have to. Those are the two aspects of the series. The teenager aspect is the bigger of the two, in my opinion, so it makes sense for Rowling to include all of these things in her story.

* * *

><p><strong><em>Author's Note<em>**

**Short one, but I had to write it. Hope you enjoyed and thanks to _stonegnome1_ and _Hannah_ for reviewing with your opinions.**

_**Hannah**_** - I can't reply to you personally so I will here. The Hat uses legilimency to sort them, so wouldn't see the Horcrux. This is canon by the way. I think these are all fairly valid questions when analysing Dumbledore's mindset. You do have to remember that this is only in terms of the decisions he made regarding Harry. I have read the novels in great detail. Multiple times, in fact. The point of this fic is to analyse the canon series. Occasionally I _may_ make something up to suit my argument, but it will _only_ be something I see as logical in terms of the series, the character and situation. I will try to avoid doing so, but sometimes there is not enough information. The fact that you're complaining that I got my analysis from the books and an understanding of the characters is strange to me as that is the point of this fic.**

**Don't know what will be next. I'll just go with the flow.**

**Beletrium**


	3. Horcruxes

**_Disclaimer: This fic is an analysis of the canon Harry Potter series. I own nothing that is mentioned here except my own opinions. This fic is not making any money. nor do I want it to._**

* * *

><p><em><strong>Horcruxes<strong>_

This will be on the idea of the Horcruxes, my thoughts on the idea and the items and their hiding places. This will contain SPOILERS for Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows. If you haven't read them by now then don't read on. Also WHY?

**Idea**

I think the idea for the Horcruxes was the right one. Going back and reading through the series gives a clear view that J.K. Rowling was headed towards the Horcruxes in the end. Hell, even in the first book there were allusions that Harry was a Horcrux. Just look at his scar hurting. Of course, at that point we were lead to believe that it was because the failed Killing Curse created a link between Harry and Voldemort. Well, I guess it did, but it was deeper than anyone first would have guessed.

The general idea of the Horcruxes is a sound one (or as sound as it can be in a fictional magical world). Killing does rip you apart, but in canon it was used as a literal ripping of the soul. I am not speaking from experience here, just using what I can gather. In a strange way, it does make sense that you could take part of that ripped soul and place it somewhere else. I think that we need more information on how they're created before we can say why Horcruxes are so uncommon. I understand that this is something Rowling is going to address in either Pottermore or in an Encyclopaedia.

I think Voldemort having them does make sense. From the beginning of the series we know that Voldemort is obsessed with immortality. Just look at how hard he tried to get the Philosopher's Stone. And the fact that Voldemort in French is, as I understand it, 'flight from death' is another indication that Rowling was leading up to it.

**The Items and their hiding places**

_Tom Riddle's Diary_ – Given to Ginny Weasley by Lucius Malfoy. Prior location unknown. Destroyed by Harry Potter by use of a Basilisk fang.

This first one is the most confusing, I think. Why did Lucius Malfoy have the diary. Bellatrix Lestrange I understand, but surely Voldemort would know that his downfall would make Lucius less loyal. Why give it to him? That leads me to believe that Lucius found it somewhere, though I can't think for the life of me where.

Perhaps Borgin and Burkes? Voldemort _did_ work there and Harry knew that Lucius was there occasionally. I am under the impression that Lucius did not know that Voldemort's real name was Tom Riddle, which means that he might not have actually known that the Diary was Voldemort's. Actually, I think this idea could have a bit of credibility. I don't believe that Voldemort would have trusted Lucius enough with a Horcrux, but he may have trusted Borgin or Burke (assuming they _do_ own the shop) to keep it there. Lucius goes in, buys the diary with the knowledge that it is a dark object and gives it to an unsuspecting Ginny Weasley. I think that could be plausible. Thoughts?

It is interesting to note that the diary was Tom Riddle's but had no writing in it at all. Why he made _it _into a Horcrux eludes me. I can't imagine that he had any form of attachment to an unused diary.

_The Gaunt Ring_ – Found by Albus Dumbledore in the ruins of the Gaunt Shack. Destroyed using Gryffindor's Sword, impregnated with Basilisk venom.

It makes sense for Voldemort to use his family's ring as a Horcrux. As the Gaunt's were decedents of Salazar Slytherin, Voldemort would have jumped at the chance to have his soul within an object of Slytherin's. As he used the murders of his Muggle relatives to create this Horcrux, this is all from my bad memory so correct me if I'm wrong, it is even more symbolic. The same time he eliminates his Muggle heritage, he embraces his Magical heritage more.

The hiding place was a good choice. It was in that house that he framed his uncle and carried out the murder of his other family. It shows his power in that sense.

_Hufflepuff's Cup_ – Originally owned by Hepzibah Smith. Found by Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger in Bellatrix Lestrange's vault in Gringott's. Destroyed by either Hermione Granger through the use of a Basilisk fang.

It cannot be stated for certain whether he made this into a Horcrux before or after Slytherin's Locket, but it still is significant. It is one of the Founders' objects which is why it was chosen. It makes sense as Voldemort felt a strong connection to Hogwarts.

The hiding place is somewhat dubious but I believe that it shows his power over his servants. I highly doubt that Bellatrix knew what it was or even its importance. I think that Voldemort simply ordered her to put it in her vault. It is ironic that this was to keep it safe, yet Voldemort broke into Gringott's, through Quirrell, in 1991. I have to wonder if he gave the Cup to Bellatrix before the end of the First War or after his resurrection. If I had to guess, it was before the First War ended as I can't believe that, before late 1997 or early 1998, Bellatrix would have had access to her vault.

_Salazar Slytherin's Locket_ – Originally owned by Hepzibah Smith. Kept in the cave where Voldemort tortured two kids while still at the orphanage. Stolen by Regulus Black and Kreacher before Regulus Black's death. Stolen by Mundungus Fletcher and given to Dolores Umbridge. Stolen back by Harry Potter, Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger at the Ministry of Magic. Destroyed by Ron Weasley using Gryffindor's Sword impregnated by Basilisk Venom.

Perhaps the most guarded Horcrux was also the one to be passed around a lot. The reasons for this one being a Horcrux is simple as it is an item of the Founders. Despite it being in the possession of Hapzibah Smith, it was technically Voldemort's as he was the last remaining heir of Slytherin.

The cave is significant to Voldemort as it was the first place that he ever truly felt strong, I'm assuming. Also, it was able to be protected better than all of the rest due to the larger space. It also helped that it was in a rather secluded area. The potion protection was the best protection on it. It killed Regulus and nearly killed Albus Dumbledore. It is strange that, despite the protections, it was so easily gained.

_Rowena Ravenclaw's Lost Diadem_ – Originally owned by Helena Ravenclaw and hidden by her. Helena tells Tom of its location. Voldemort placed the Diadem in the Room of Requirement when asking Albus Dumbledore for the Defence Against the Dark Arts job. Destroyed by Vincent Crabbe, accidently, through the use of _Fiendfye_.

Again, another of the items of the Founders. I can see the allure of this particular item for Voldemort. It's been lost for centuries what better thing to hide your soul in then something people aren't looking for? Ingenious really. What was _not_ ingenious was hiding it in the most likely place, that being Hogwarts.

I understand the reasoning for choosing Hogwarts. It was his first true home. But he could have hidden his Diary in the Room of Requirement. No one would have suspected his diary at all and it being hidden at Hogwarts would probably not be looked at either. He should have used a glamour charm on the Diadem and placed _it_ somewhere else. Borgin and Burkes or even Albania. Maybe even Little Hangleton Graveyard. He could have buried it underground and no one would know. Oh well.

_Nagini_ – Voldemort's pet snake. Killed by Neville Longbottom using the Sword of Gryffindor impregnated by Basilisk Venom.

A living Horcrux. Interesting, really. I do have a question about Nagini being a Horcrux. Would the Horcrux have been destroyed if she was killed by a normal sword, or did it have to be Gryffindor's Sword? I've always wondered about that.

As for it actually being a Horcrux, it makes sense. Voldmeort can keep it safe and most people don't even know if living Horcruxes are able to be done. Also, the snake represents Salazar Slytherin, making that three Horcruxes to do with Slytherin, showing Voldemort's feeling that the house is superior.

_Harry Potter_ – Inadvertently created by Voldemort 31st October, 1981. Destroyed by Voldemort using the Killing Curse.

I think this is the most obvious Horcrux of the lot. Just look at _every other book_ in the series and you'll see the signs. There isn't much to be said about Harry being a Horcrux. It just seems right when you see all of the signs. Admittedly, I do think that Rowling put it in there as something to create a fenzy among readers when they read of Harry's death, but it does fit.

It is ironic that Voldemort went to some lengths to protect all of his Horcruxes that he knew about but went about trying to destroy one.

**Conclusion**

I have seen people complain about the Horcruxes, and that's their opinion, but I truly think that they fit. That does not mean that every story I read has to have them in there, in fact there is one series that was written prior to HBP which is in my favourites list written by _Semprini_ that ends the series very well.

* * *

><p><strong><em>Author's Notes<em>**

**Hope you liked this one. Let me know if you disagree at all and I will gladly reply with a PM where I can and here where I can't. Also, if I made any mistakes in terms of grammar, spelling or even facts, let me know.**

_**Luiz4200**_** - Snape will be the next chapter. I have a lot to say. Good and bad.**

**Beletrium**


	4. Severus Snape

**_Disclaimer: This fic is an analysis of the canon Harry Potter series. I own nothing that is mentioned here except my own opinions. This fic is not making any money. nor do I want it to._**

* * *

><p><em><strong>Severus Snape<strong>_

_Luiz4200_ asked me in an earlier review for my opinions on one Severus Snape. I figured that I would do so because I have a bit to say.

In my opinion, the Harry Potter series is really about four people in the end. Harry Potter, Tom Riddle Jr., Albus Dumbledore and Severus Snape. I think that was really what J.K. Rowling wanted to happen. Each of them are focused on very early on in the series, but in different ways. Severus Snape is perhaps the most ambiguous of the four to be up there, but I think he deserves the spot.

Some would argue that Severus Snape's spot here belongs to Ron Weasley or Hermione Granger. I don't agree with that assessment. The character of Severus Snape was built on in a way that J.K. Rowling didn't do, nor ever had to do, with Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger.

Severus Snape is a very complex character from the very beginning. Obviously, he plays the role of the villain for a lot of the first four books with little mention of exactly why. It is clear that he hated Harry Potter for being James Potter's son. It isn't until _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_ that we finally get a picture of the man that isn't the 'evil potions master'. Everyone who read _Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows _or even just saw the movies will understand why that is significant for Severus Snape.

With that out of the way, I will now bring up certain topics and talk about Severus Snape's involvement with each.

**Harry Potter**

This is perhaps the most obvious yet, in some ways, most complicated way to begin this analysis of Severus Snape's character. From the beginning in _Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone_, we learn that Severus has a very large dislike, verging on hatred, towards Harry. The plot thickens when Albus tells Harry that Severus owed James Potter a life debt and he was repaying it by keeping Harry out of danger. That is the first of many conflicting ideas with Severus Snape.

I think that Severus definitely had a reason to hate Harry. I don't agree with it at all, but I can see his point. In the beginning it seems as if it's because Harry looks so much like his father, but in the end we learn that it's actually because of Lily, Harry's mother. Do I think that Severus should have given Harry the benefit of the doubt? Yes, I do. But I also have to wonder how Severus would have reacted had Harry actually been Sorted into Slytherin. It's a question that fanfiction writers have tried to answer, with varying degrees of success. Personally, I think that Severus would have still hated Harry but perhaps not on the same level.

The occlumency lessons in _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_ were a shambles. I think pretty much everyone is agreeable to that. Some have said that Dumbledore orchestrated it, but I refuse to believe that so it had to be down to Severus. I think that he saw this as a chance to expose Harry and took it. It was definitely not a good decision and it makes me wonder if he truly was on the right side in the end, but I'll talk more on that later.

I cannot let this section be finished without a mention of Harry naming one of his sons after Severus. Just as it did with Dumbledore, it showed the whole thing J.K. Rowling was trying to show. Harry naming his child after Severus is confusing on the surface. This was the man that he believed was evil for six and a half years of his life. The man that loved his mother. But in the end, it comes down to respect. Harry Potter respects Severus Snape, so I believe we should do so as well.

**Lily Evans-Potter**

I have read quite a bit that people thought that Snape didn't truly love Lily Evans and that it was more of an obsession. I disagree entirely. I think the fact that his Patronus was a doe is pretty final, though it could still be a coincidence that it was a doe. I think that Severus Snape truly did love Lily Evans. That much I can agree with.

When Severus called Lily a 'mudblood' that effectively ruined their relationship. As it always happens in High School, which is what Hogwarts is, people join the wrong crowd. The problem was that, being in Slytherin, Severus didn't have much of a choice in the matter. The fact that Voldemort was growing in power wasn't a good thing either, given that most Death Eaters were from Slytherin House.

I think that his falling out with Lily stems from his heritage. As a Half-Blood Severus needed to get in with the purebloods in order to get anywhere in Slytherin. As such, he may have felt the need to alienate Lily as she was muggle-born. I think, though, that he didn't really want to do it. I'm reminded of Albus Dumbledore's "What is right and what is easy" speech. Severus chose the easy road rather than the right road. And it ultimately lead to the woman he loved dying.

This brings me to the Prophecy. When he told Voldemort the Prophecy, he had no idea that it would mean Lily. And when he found out he immediately defected to the 'Light' side. This is where things become sketchy for me. But I'll come to that soon.

**The Marauders**

I think Severus had every right to hate James Potter and Sirius Black. I mean, who wouldn't after such torment? I think his anger towards Remus Lupin is misplaced. I think Remus was as much of a tagalong as Peter Pettigrew was, but I'll come back to that at a later date. Look at what James and Sirius did to him. They tormented him throughout Hogwarts and singled him out.

Bullying is unnecessary. I'll say that right now so I cover myself for what I'm about to say. No matter what we say about bullying and how we plan to rid schools of it, it will _always_ happen as long as there are 'weak' and 'strong' people. I think Severus really needed to grow up and accept that more than anything else. Sirius too, really. He carried as much of a grudge as Severus did and that didn't really help things.

The idea that Severus took out his anger from these incidents on Harry is just inexcusable. It happened in school and involved someone that Harry had never known

'**Snape's Worst Memory'**

This chapter of _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_ confuses me when compared to everything else. From what we know, Snape had a terrible childhood, a terrible time at Hogwarts and a terrible life after Hogwarts. The first, presumably, was because of his father. I imagine this was more than just emotional. The second was bullying which can be very traumatising. And the last was serving a Dark Lord who tortures you if you do the slightest thing wrong.

But when he extracts the memories from head, so they cannot be seen, they end up being about his Hogwarts times. That, to me, makes very little sense. His worst memory is being bullied and calling Lily Evans a 'mudblood'? And not when he received the Dark Mark? Or was tortured? Or when he heard about Lily's death? Or anything to do with his father?

Don't get me wrong. Bullying is terrible, but it seems to me that Severus has been through a lot worse. I also understand that it was bad for him because he lost Lily that day, but even so, how does that compare to condemning her, unknowingly, to die? I think that that particular memory was a strange choice for his 'worst memory'. Or perhaps I'm looking into it too much. Although I can't imagine working for Voldemort would be fun memories.

**Loyalty**

I think it's fair to say that Severus really cannot be trusted to stay on the same side of the war. He defected at the end of the First War, so what would have stopped him from doing so during the Second War?

I only say this because I can't see what he had to gain from not teaching Harry occlumency better. That was the one thing that made me wonder where Severus' loyalty lay. I think it can safely be said that he wasn't with Voldemort during the Second War, but that didn't mean that he was with Dumbledore. He could just have been neutral and doing what he had to.

If he was truly with Dumbledore then he would have gotten Pettigrew somehow to free Sirius. It would have been easy enough for him to do, but he didn't. This is another thing that showed that he was working for himself. Surely he would have worked out that having Sirius be free would have been more beneficial for the Order. So why didn't he do it? Because he could easily have been in it for himself and himself only. He let his hatred get the better of him, when he could have done something to help give a man back his life.

Also, if he was really on the side of the Order in the Final Battle, why didn't he fight the Death Eaters? Instead he stayed away before Voldemort killed him. He didn't fight for either side.

Personally, I think Severus was on the 'Light' side, but I think that there is a chance that he was more neutral then J.K. Rowling would have us think.

**Conclusion**

All four characters mentioned at the beginning of this analysis are interesting for different reasons. Severus Snape is no different. His character was probably the best built character in the entire series and I think J.K. Rowling should be applauded for her writing of him. I see every aspect of Severus Snape. I can see that people take him as evil, neutral or good. I tend to lean towards 'good' myself.

If I met Severus Snape in real life, I would likely hate the man. But as a character in a book series I can like him in the same way that I can like the villains in a movie or television show. I think the depth of his character was brilliant and well hidden by J.K. Rowling. It would have been easy to drop more obvious hints, but she kept it subtle.

I'm not going to say that Severus Snape is my favourite character, far from it, but I can respect the character.

* * *

><p><strong><em>Author's Note<em>**

**I was going to write something on Severus Snape's relationship with Albus Dumbledore, but I found it a bit difficult to do so. It's all really obvious stuff, really. I hope that this is good enough for you _Luiz4200_.**

**I'm thinking of doing either Harry/Ginny or my top five characters next. I'll make my decision when I start to write.**

**I won't respond to reviews here anymore unless they don't have proper accounts. But I would like to thank you all for reviewing.**

**Thanks for reading.**

**Beletrium**


	5. Books To Film

**_Disclaimer: This fic is an analysis of the canon Harry Potter series. I own nothing that is mentioned here except my own opinions. This fic is not making any money. nor do I want it to._**

* * *

><p><em><strong>Books To Film<strong>_

I've decided to write this up because I have been reading quite a lot of old posts on various websites saying that the Harry Potter films are terrible because they often stray from the books. This statement annoys me and I need to write it now before my anger wears off. Bear with me.

I'll start with the idea that the films often stray from the book. Guess what? That is an absolutely correct statement. Why? Because if they followed the books exactly, the films would take forever and it wouldn't be as engaging.

Books and film are two vastly different mediums. Films can show what needs to be shown in a second when books take a paragraph or two to describe it. Books are more descriptive and are required to have more in them just by the nature of them.

Take _Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire_ for example. In the book there are a lot of little mini plots that are there to keep people enthralled, like Hermione trying to help the House Elves. The movie adaptation doesn't have those smaller plots because they are, in terms of the big picture, unnecessary. The film version goes from task to task with minimal in between. It does this because a film has to be action orientated to be interesting.

A book can have these extra bits because the reader already knows that they will be getting into something large. A moviegoer wants a 2-3 hour experience. A moviegoer doesn't want to sit through ten minutes of Hermione trying to help House Elves. It would be boring. Sure, you would have a niche audience that would watch it, myself included, but they aren't looking for a niche audience, they are, looking for a mass audience.

The books were not written to become movies. Honestly, I think that statement sums up the whole argument. To me, the books and the films are two separate entities. I love the movies just as I love the books. Why? Because I can separate the two concepts in my mind. Anyone who truly thought, going into the films, that they would get precisely everything that happened in the books shown in the films was deluding themselves.

If you hate the movies for actual reasons, I will fully accept that. It's when you bring in the idea that the movies aren't the books that you annoy me. If you want the books, read them! Simple as that.

I like to think that the movies help to enhance the books. Personally, every time I read anything said by Luna Lovegood, I always hear Evanna Lynch's voice in my head. When I read the characters names, I often associate them with who plays them in the movies, with a few exceptions.

On that note, I think the films actually did a very good job with casting for all of the characters. Granted, the Golden Trio were a lot more good-looking in the films than the book versions were meant to be, but it's film. They would have to be to a point.

I think the movies do what they need to do. They get rid of anything they don't need from the books and boil it all back down to just the primary plot. Does that make the movies inferior to the books? Perhaps. But they aren't terrible by any stretch of the imagination.

There are actually things in the movies that I think are superior to the books. The portrayal of Bellatrix Lestrange by Helena Bonham Carter for one. I honestly feel that the Bellatrix in the movies is more interesting than the one in the books.

Now, don't think I'm saying that the movies are better than the books. I don't believe that for even a second. What I'm trying to point out is that the films are not meant to be the books. If they were, the main characters would be, at best, very plain, the plot would be full of things that would bore moviegoers and the movies would go on forever.

This is why I think that the movies should be judged on their own merits and should not be completely compared with the books. I love both the books and the movies, though the books win by a mile.

Now that this is done, I would like to say that I will be writing up an analysis for each of the books and each of the films over time. That's why I haven't gone into those here.

* * *

><p><em><strong>Author's Note<strong>_

**I know I said I would do other things, but I wanted to get this off my chest. I don't think that this is very well written or structured, but my rants rarely are. I will write something better next time.**

**My thanks go out to _red-jello04_, _Sybil Corvax_, _madeyemarauder_, _whatweareafraidof_, _Luiz4200_, _Aurors of Olympus_, _CyberArcRotarr_ and _franv_ for reviewing. I would reply right now, but I am so damn tired. I apologise.**

**Thanks for reading and let me know what you think, whether you agree with me or not.**

**Beletrium  
><strong>


	6. Is Ginny Weasley a Mary Sue?

**_Disclaimer: This fic is an analysis of the canon Harry Potter series. I own nothing that is mentioned here except my own opinions. This fic is not making any money. nor do I want it to._**

* * *

><p><em><strong>Is Ginny Weasley a Mary Sue<strong>_

_Aurors of Olympus_ left me a review and asked my opinion as to whether Ginny Weasley is a Mary Sue. This analysis will also serve as an analysis of her character as well to a point. I may decide to do an actual analysis of her character overall later down the track.

"_A __Mary Sue__ (sometimes just __Sue__), in literary criticism and particularly in fanfiction, is a fictional character with overly idealized and hackneyed mannerisms, lacking noteworthy flaws, and primarily functioning as a wish-fulfillment fantasy for the author or reader. It is generally accepted as a character whose positive aspects overwhelm their other traits until they become one-dimensional. While the label "Mary Sue" itself originates from a parody of this type of character, most characters labeled "Mary Sues" by readers are not intended by authors as such. Male Mary Sues are often dubbed "Gary Stu", "Larry Stu", "Marty Stu", or similar names._" – This comes from Wikipedia.

First of all, my opinion. No, I don't see Ginny Weasley as a Mary Sue. Why? Because most Mary Sues actually mean something to the plot of the story in some way. Ginny Weasley has never been a big part of the plot, even in _Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince_, where she was the love interest, she wasn't a big part.

I'll start with Ginny in general. She was brought up having six older brothers. As a result, she has become a rather tough and indemendent person. Some people see this toughness and independence as a Mary Sue-like quality, but I don't. If she just had it for no reason, then it would be. But as it stands, she has a reason to be this tough character and it works.

Ginny is described as an extremely pretty girl, another indication that people like to point out for a Mary Sue. What I would like to know is when it became such a bad thing to be good looking. Maybe it's just me but I don't really think her looks matter that much overall. She doesn't take advantage of them and it's really just a little bit of information included by J.K. Rowling to describe a character.

Ginny was introduced in _Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone_. She had _no _part in that book. She was then subsequently in _Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets_ and her character got a larger role, though it was still rather small. She was a fangirl and that really hurt her character.

But, at the same time, _Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets_ showed just how flawed Ginny Weasley is (remembering the definition above states "_lacking noteworthy flaws_" as a main part of being a Mary Sue). She was completely obsessed with Harry Potter to the point where she forgot common sense and allowed Tom Riddle to take her over using the diary. And yes this is a flaw. It shows that she is, in a lot of ways, mentally weak.

Now, a lot of people will argue that Ginny actually became a Mary Sue later in the series. But what a lot of people fail to see a lot of the time is that Ginny was a minor character in both _Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban_ and _Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire_. If she were a Mary Sue, she would have been dating Harry and helping him through everything that happened with him in those two years. Also, she would be involved in everything big that happened in each of those books. So, by this point Ginny Weasley is not a Mary Sue and we are four books into the series.

Now we move on to _Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix_. This is where a lot of people would say that she became a Mary Sue. She joined Dumbledore's Army and discovered a proficiency in both the Disarming Charm and the Reductor Curse. People seem to think that this means that she was fantastic at magic in general. No, that isn't what that means. That's two spells, not an entire arsenal of spells if she had shown to be brilliant at _everything_, then yes she would be a Mary Sue. But she didn't so I don't see how that makes her a one.

Moving on to the Battle in the Department of Mysteries. Despite what you might think, Ginny actually did pretty badly there, as did all of the six that went. One of the Death Eaters broker her ankle and then she used a Reductor on a model of Pluto before going into shock and playing no other part in the battle. If she was a Mary Sue, she would have fixed her ankle, saved Harry from something at least once, stayed fighting until the end and perhaps even unknowingly kill someone. That's five books down.

In _Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince_, despite what a lot of people will say, Ginny was still not a large character. She was more involved than she had been in previous books, but she was still very minor in the end. She and Harry dated for a few chapters towards the end of the book but it wasn't a very long relationship because of the results of the book. Honestly, I don't think there is anything to say that she is a Mary Sue from this book. She didn't do anything remotely Mary Sue-ish in the whole book, apart from maybe being with Dean when she was falling for Harry.

During the battle in _Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince_, she duelled Amycus Carrow and came out uninjured. But this wasn't because of her skill, it was because she had used Felix Felicis to become luckier. Would she have gotten through unscathed otherwise? I don't think so. Artificial luck doesn't seem to me to be anything near a Mary Sue quality. Harry then proceeded to break up with Ginny, and she accepted his reasons. I'm not sure if this is something a Mary Sue would do, so please inform me if it is. But as it is, I don't think it makes her a Mary Sue.

Her role in _Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows _was minimal at best. She was around for the first few chapters and then nothing happened with her again until the battle began. During the battle, she openly defied not only her parents and other authority figures, but Harry as well, by fighting. Now this could be construed as her being a Mary Sue, but you have to look at her reasons. Her primary reason was because her whole family was fighting. It is a noble reason. If she had said, "But my darling Harry is out there, I must protect him," That would make her a Mary Sue. But that wasn't the case.

When Harry revealed that he was actually alive, Ginny went on to duel Bellatrix Lestrange. Not on her own, mind you. She fought Bellatrix alongside Luna and Hermione. If Ginny were a Mary Sue, she would have fought Bellatrix and destroyed her all on her own. Add to that, the fact that Bellatrix actually defeated her, Hermione and Luna before Molly went completely insane and killed her (which was GREAT by the way).

Now, I've been through every single book and told you why Ginny is _not_, in fact, a Mary Sue. But my closing statement on this is simple. Even if Ginny Weasley is a Mary Sue, does it really matter? J.K. Rowling is one of very few authors who can write a Mary Sue and make it believable. People like to say that characters are bad because they are Mary Sues. I have to disagree. Just because a character has a lot of good points, doesn't make them a terrible character. It just makes them exceptional. Jesus, for instance, could be considered a Gary Stu, or whatever you would like to call a male Mary Sue. Yet, he is one of the most celebrated people in the world, whether you believe that the Bible is true or not. My point? If Ginny Weasley is a Mary Sue, does it really matter?

* * *

><p><em><strong>Author's Note<strong>_

**I don't expect everyone to agree with this one at all, but I do firmly believe everything stated here. I honestly think Nymphadora Tonks is more of a Mary Sue than Ginny is. Maybe it's just me but I really don't care all that much if a character is a Mary Sue. As long as they're interesting, I'll be fine. That being said, my characters to my stories will almost always steer clear of being a Mary Sue simply because of my own characterisation.**

**Thanks to _Aurors Of Olympus_ and _lunalestrange4_ for reviewing.**

**Thanks for reading and let me know what you think about Ginny Weasley being a Mary Sue.**

**Beletrium  
><strong>


End file.
